Evidence, not motive, weighs in favor of giving schoolchildren all sides

by Stephen C. Meyer

Cynical lawyers have a maxim: When you have the facts on your side, argue the
facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on
your side, question the motives of the opposition.

The latter seems to be the strategy of die-hard defenders of Charles Darwin's
theory of evolution, now that the State Board of Education in Ohio agreed to
allow local districts to bring critical analysis of Darwin's ideas into classrooms.

Case in point: A few weeks ago in The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer, Case Western
Reserve University physicist Lawrence Krauss attacked the board's decision by
linking it to a vast conspiracy of scientists who favor the theory of intelligent
design. Design is dangerous, Krauss implied, because the scientists who favor
it are religiously motivated. But Krauss' attack and his conspiracy theory are
irrelevant to assessing the state board's policies. It's not what motivates
a scientist's theory that determines accuracy; it's evidence.

Consider a parallel example: Noted Darwinist Richard Dawkins has praised Darwin's
theory because it allows him "to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.''
Does this scientist's anti-religious motive disqualify Darwinian evolution from
consideration as a scientific theory? Obviously not. The same should apply when
considering design.

The leading advocate of intelligent design, Lehigh University biochemist Michael
Behe, has marshaled some intriguing evidence: the miniature motors and complex
circuits in cells.

But Krauss did not argue with Behe's evidence; he questioned the motives of
Behe's associates. Krauss claims to speak for science in Ohio. Yet he stoops
to some very unscientific and fallacious forms of argument.

Krauss also distracts attention from the real issue. The state board has acknowledged
that local teachers and school boards already have the freedom to decide whether
to discuss the theory of intelligent design. But apart from that, the board
did not address the subject. The board does not require students to learn about
the theory of intelligent design in the new science standards. Nor will students
be tested on the theory. How, then, are the motives of scientists who favor
intelligent design at all relevant?

The new standards do require students to know about evolution and why "scientists
today continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary
theory.'' This is a good policy, one that has the facts and the law on its side.

First, the facts: Many biologists question aspects of evolutionary theory because
many of the main lines of evidence for evolutionary theory no longer hold up.
German biologist Ernst Haeckel's famous embryo drawings long were thought to
show that all vertebrates share a common ancestry. But biologists now know that
these diagrams are inaccurate. Darwin's theory asserts that all living forms
evolved gradually from a common ancestor. But fossil evidence shows the geologically
sudden appearance of new animal forms in the Cambrian period. Biologists know
about these problems.

The state board wisely has required students to know about some of these well-known
problems when they learn about evolutionary theory. That's just good science
education. Students have a right to know.

Law also supports the board's decision. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
in Edwards vs. Aguillard that state legislatures could require the teaching
of "scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories.'' Last year,
in the report language of the new federal education act, Congress expressed
its support for greater openness in science instruction, citing biological evolution
as the key example.

The state board's decision is very popular with the public. Knowing this, opponents
argue that majority opinion does not matter in science. They are right. In science,
it's evidence that decides questions. But, ironically, that is an argument for
allowing students to know all the evidence, not just the evidence that supports
the view of the majority of scientists. Because evidence, and not the majority
opinion of scientists, is the ultimate authority in science, students need to
learn to analyze evidence critically, not just to accept an assumed consensus.

On the other hand, the majority does decide public-policy questions. And, according
to many public-opinion polls, an overwhelming majority of Ohio voters support
the policy of telling students about scientific critiques of Darwinian evolution.
Others have complained that evolution has been unfairly singled out in these
standards. Why not insist that students critically analyze other theories and
ideas?

First, there is now more scientific disagreement about Darwinian evolution
than about other scientific theories.

Second, evolution, more than other scientific theories, has been taught dogmatically.
Scientific critics, as we have seen, are routinely stigmatized as religiously
motivated. Fortunately, the State Board of Education's decision will make it
more difficult to stigmatize teachers who present the evidence for and against
evolutionary theory.